Monday, December 30, 2013

In the early years
(1990-93) when we were laying the framework for the global firm that Deloitte,
Touche, Tohmatsu would later become I recall seeing the eye-popping travel
expenses we were incurring as well as the reaction of senior management. Were
these costs really necessary? Couldn't we invest a fraction of these expenses
into audio-visual technology that would enable us to meet with our colleagues
around the world real-time without ever leaving our offices?

Apart from the expense of travel, those who spend a good deal of time on the
road know there is also considerable hassle and inconvenience associated with
building your frequent flyer miles—so why not rely on video teleconferencing
instead and leave the jet lag and travel delays to others? The idea found
traction and Deloitte did invest considerable sums of money in teleconferencing
technology and we did get great use out of it—but we also discovered its
limitations.

Management groups that relied primarily on video teleconferencing to coordinate
their activities found that over time certain hard-to-define frustrations often
built up and that they needed periodic face-to-face meetings to clear things
up. Within minutes of meeting face-to-face, misunderstandings and tensions
disappeared like a morning fog with the sun. We came to conclude that as the
social animals that human beings are, communication is not limited to the
written or spoken word. We need face time as well.

We came to appreciate the difference between “high context” and “low context”
cultures. The US, Canada and North-Western Europe are mostly low context
cultures—that is, we don’t need to know people very well to feel comfortable
doing business with them. We can and do sign contracts with people we have
literally just met. But most of the rest of the world doesn't work this way.
They are high context cultures who would never undertake any serious engagement
with anyone without first developing a solid understanding of the person. They
rely less on lawyers and contracts and more on personal trust based on family
ties and friendships—which in turn are based on frequent, face-to-face contact.
So we came to understand that if we wanted to work effectively in these
cultures, we needed purposefully to get out of our offices and meet our clients
and business associates face-to-face on their home turf.

Technology is critical, but it does have its limitations—as every family who
has had a teenager texting at the dinner table knows…..

Monday, December 16, 2013

Regulating
private sector influence over the democratic policymaking process is a
constantly shifting landscape in the US as policymakers and public interest
advocates seek to maintain the integrity of the process and limit the
influence of money while not infringing on the Constitutional rights of
citizens to make their views known to policymakers. Rules
are constantly being made and revised as gaps or unintended consequences
become exposed (usually by the news media)—so even veteran lobbyists need to
periodically re-read these regulations in order to be in compliance.
Penalties can be severe with financial fines and even prison time as
punishment for those who make mistakes or who purposely ignore the law.

Most organizations and their employees that depend directly or indirectly on
the government are not allowed to lobby or make political contributions at all.
Employers have strict restrictions on soliciting their employees to
make political contributions. And until a controversial Supreme Court
ruling last year, there were absolute limits to the amount of
financial contributions wealthy individuals and businesses could give
political candidates.Mark Twain once noted that “mankind is the only one of the animal kingdom that
blushes—or needs to.” To that point, the
best constraint on undue political influence on the democratic process is
simple transparency—a requirement for lobbyists to list themselves publically
according to whom they represent, what their purpose is, and how much they
are getting paid to do that work. This is how the European Union got
started in regulating their lobbyists and is how the United Kingdom regulates
itself. In fact with this level of transparency in the UK, they even
allow Members of Parliament to be paid lobbyists as long as their payments are
publically disclosed.Here are the links below to the four entities in
the US Government that share responsibility for monitoring and regulating
lobbying in this country. FARA is run by the Department of
Justice to monitor foreign money being spent in the US to influence public
policy. This was a program started just before the Second World War and
is still in force today.http://www.fara.gov/http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/http://www.senate.gov/http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml
These are not perfect regulations but they have made the policymaking process
in the US more transparent and somewhat more honest than it used to be. I
recall hearing stories of dinner parties hosted by lobbyists a generation
ago where Members of Congress could expect to find hundred dollar bills under
their dinner plates. That sort of activity does not happen anymore.
While money still plays a huge role in politics, at least the common
citizen is more aware now of who is being paid what, by whom, and for what
purpose—and that does make a difference in determining how people vote and
perhaps why.

The biggest conflict of interest remaining for Congress that has not been
addressed to-date is their ability to buy stock in companies that are affected
by their legislation. In the private sector this would be considered
“insider trading” and is illegal, but not so for the US Congress.

Monday, December 9, 2013

More often than
not, membership organizations find their stakeholder communications to be a
source of frustration for all concerned. Stakeholders complain they are not
“getting the messages” sent to them even while those poor souls responsible for
communications can document that they are sending out clear messages at machine
gun frequency. So what is going on?

It is an old lesson—saying something is not the same as being heard.
Communications occurs best when there is an innate understanding between the sender
and the receiver. Among other things, the sender knows whom the message is
intended to reach, why it should be of interest to them, as well as how and
when best to reach them. And therein lies the catch—just because you feel the
urge to say something, doesn't mean the person or people you want to speak to
is going to hear you—or if they do, that your message will have the desired
effect.

Carpenters have a saying that communicators would do well to heed: measure
twice, cut once. Too often communicators feel that frequency and volume can
compensate for ill- conceived messages that do not seem to be having their
intended impact.

Content of course is important. Are those you are trying to communicate with
interested in the subject matter? Ever notice how in a noisy room of people you
suddenly notice when someone has mentioned your name on the other side of the
room?—or that in a noisy theater someone suddenly gasping the word “Fire!” is
heard by all? Personal interest tends to filter out the noise and to focus
sharply on matters related to self-survival or simple vanity.

But the means and timing of communicating are also important. Using the
telephone works, but not at dinner time or at 1:00 am if you ever want that
person to take your call again! The print media—newspapers and magazines—used
to be a good general way to reach large numbers of people, but people under the
age of 30 tend not to rely on the print media for their information as much as
previous generations. If you want to reach members of that generation the
social media might be the better approach to take.

So yes, you probably can prove your audience has received the newsletters or
emails you are sending them, but you may be deceiving yourself if you think
they are getting your message. Spending the time and resources first to
understand what your audiences want as well as when and how they want to hear
from you will save you in time, effort, expense and frustration later!

In non-profit organizations silos
tend to result from “vertically” structured business functions where each major
business function—membership, education, publications, meetings, etc.—is a separate,
stand-alone, fully self-contained business operation. Silos are often the way small and
start-up organizations organize early in their organizational life—by
individual function. Silos can be an
efficient way for the conduct of limited, similar business operations.

As organizations grow, however, silos may grow to
reflect an inward focus by an organization--to prioritize and do the things
that those in the silo “like to do”. The
longer an organization functions with silos, the greater the importance of the
individual silo becomes to those working within it. Soon, the importance of the silo may outweigh
the importance of the overall organization, at least to those dwelling in the
silo.

When this perception of the importance of an
individual silo takes hold, it frequently doesn’t matter (to those in the silo)
if there is a market for their products, or if operations are profitable. Further, it’s not uncommon for there to be
strong competition among silos for organizational resources—financial and
human. The result? The more silos that an organization has, the
more that internal competition may inhibit organizational responsiveness, performance
and viability. Am I right on this?

Is there an alternative for improved
organizational performance? Here it is
folks: market focus! That’s it:
market focus.

Market focus means identifying the markets critical to
organizational success as the basis for the development and sales of all of an
organization’s goods and services. This
involves “the voice of the customer”:
learning and understanding the customer’s expectations and requirements,
delighting customers and building loyalty.
This is a far cry from “producing what we like to produce” and trying to
get someone to buy it.

This perspective of market focus can be a cultural and
functional shift for non-profits where volunteers and staff in silos “do what
they like to do”. Market focus is an
“external view”, as opposed to silo’s “internal view”. Implementing market focus, using the voice of
the customer, involves an annual process to assess and guide an organization’s
portfolio of goods and services. This
means encouraging and supporting innovation for new programs; it means
sunsetting some existing programs, in a planned, orderly basis.

Market focus means new opportunities. New opportunities mean new revenues and
resources, which will benefit all organizational members and customers. Want to trade your silos for new
opportunities? Become market focused!

About Me

For health, education, workforce, finance and other non profit and public service organizations that want to leverage resources and strategically plan for U.S. or international market expansion.
Plexus Consulting Group® provides a broad-range of consulting and management services to not-for-profit and public service sectors. We help clients overcome challenge, achieve excellence, and maintain success.
The Plexus team of multilingual, multitalented professionals align themselves primarily among lines of industry specialization, including Globalization, Education, Workforce Development, Healthcare, and Financial Services.